Category talk:Miscellaneous Monarchs
With Monarchs being subdivided by nationality, we should probably make this say something like "Monarchs of Miscellaneous Nationalities." *groan* After all these years, why can't Wiki give us a way to move a category en masse, as opposed to editing each and every member article? That's so tedious. Turtle Fan 03:16, February 24, 2011 (UTC) :It occurs to me now that, perhaps instead of splitting up monarchs by country, it might be more useful to do it by continent. We are fairly drowning in Europeans and Asians, and (surprisingly) North Americans. South Americans also give a fair showing. :By doing that, we can clump a bunch of articles together without having to resort to "Miscellanea". TR 16:43, February 24, 2011 (UTC) ::Eh--Still feels pretty miscellaneous to me. There's often not that much of a connection based on continent other than an accident of geography. Especially in Asia, where it's only been for the last century or so that the cultures on one end of the continent have been more than dimly aware of the existence of the cultures on the other. Turtle Fan 20:22, February 24, 2011 (UTC) :::I don't know, I just find a category that blatantly says "There aren't enough rulers from X country, so no category for them!" a little off-putting somehow. At least with the continental divide, we aren't drawing obvious attention to it. TR 21:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC) ::::I think it would be more obvious. "Miscellaneous" allows one to ignore the geography altogether. ::If you'd like to spruce it up, we have three or four rulers of the Spanish Netherlands, four kings of Denmark counting the Hamlet characters, three pages that could justify a "Mexican Emperors" category, and a boatload who would be better off moving to "Fictional Worlds." Let's try to resort those before we do anything else to the category. Turtle Fan 20:30, February 24, 2011 (UTC) :::That might be a start. Maybe we should consider broadening our definitions a bit. If we called a category "Ancient Greek Rulers", for example, we could lump in Alexander the Great, Agis II of Sparta, Critias, Peisistratos, and even Alcibiades. ::::I'd thought of suggesting that, too. If "Monarchs of Britain/England" were "British Monarchs," Arthur and Boudicca would have nice little homes as well. The British monarchy, though, is easily the most well-documented and venerable monarchical institution in the world, and I'd hate to muddy those waters when they've got such a rare crystal clarity. Turtle Fan 22:19, February 24, 2011 (UTC) :::::We could consider some sort of broader "British Rulers" or "Heads of State in the British Isles" or something. We could clump together the British, the English, and the Scottish Monarchs, plus the errant Boudicca. TR 16:49, February 25, 2011 (UTC) :::Not sure if creating rulers of the Spanish Netherlands makes sense; unless HT goes back to the 17th Century, it's not gonna grow. TR 21:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC) ::::It could become a Dutch Monarchs category in general. Though I suppose that, if Wilhelmina were going to appear in TWTPE, she would have done so by now, and otherwise . . . Well, it's hard to imagine HT suddenly developing interest in any historical period, with his diminished output in general and his shift to science fiction in what is being written. :::::If "Stetl Days" is released in a format other than Kindle, we may get us a few new Tsars. ::::::I found some free download that lets me read kindle stories on my computer. I don't know whether I'll be able to download stories directly to it or would need to transfer them over after downloading them to the Kindle I don't have. If the former, I'll spring for the ninety-nine cents. Turtle Fan 01:20, February 25, 2011 (UTC) ::::He might do a new ACW story in Blue vs Grey--Sometimes he puts first-runs in collections he edits-- :::::I'm rather counting on it at this point. TR 01:01, February 25, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Would be nice. Care to hypothesize about what he'd do? In the broadest strokes, he's done Rebels Win, Union Wins But Reconstruction Is Different, and Alien Space Bats Get Involved. Maybe he has the Rebs take to the hills and go partisan? That's always struck me as fodder for at least a good short story. ::::::I'd bet that NFB will be involved, and such a premise could make room for him rather nicely. Turtle Fan 01:20, February 25, 2011 (UTC) :::::::That would be a possibility. Now, that was part of Must and Shall, but not in the way you are proposing. TR 16:49, February 25, 2011 (UTC) ::::....but there would certainly be no reason for William III, who was the king of the Netherlands at the time, to get involved. The only monarchs who have any remote chance of appearing are Victoria, Nap III, and Maximilian, and we already have articles on all three. In fact, we already have articles on just about everyone likely to be in a Civil War story, though I suppose there's always the possibility some obscure general will crop up for a line or two. (Or maybe a not-so-obscure one: Almost every general likely to be named within the first few minutes of a brainstorm had a doppelganger in WBtP, but that doesn't mean we've got articles on the generals themselves. For instance, we have no George Thomas nor John Bell Hood, though the latter has one of these. Turtle Fan 22:19, February 24, 2011 (UTC) :::::And we have no Doubting George either. I would say "That's shocking!" but then, if you're a project that was over and done with before we took over here, and you're not an extra-special story like Videssos, Worldwar, or 191, then your odds of inclusion really aren't all that great. Turtle Fan 22:23, February 24, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I had that revelation not long ago: between GotS, 191, and FP, we could potentially have articles on every major political and military figure of the ACW ("Potentially" because GotS has not been fully gone over yet). TR 01:01, February 25, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I just took a quick look-see. Hood's in GotS. Well he doesn't appear, but he gets a mention. When Lee's reading Catton's book. As soon as he sees "Johnston got sacked in front of Atlanta and replaced with Hood," he knew bad things would come of that, because he reflected that Hood was too intemperate for independent command. I'll turn that little thumbnail into an article in a bit. Turtle Fan 01:20, February 25, 2011 (UTC) I guess another thing we could do with this category would be to say it's only for monarchs who don't appear in any other monarchical categories. So for instance we could remove all of the caliphs, and know we should revisit that category if we ever want to see if we could support, for instance, a Turkish Monarchs category. Turtle Fan 22:19, February 24, 2011 (UTC)